Question for the dittohead cons (not the smart ones)...?

Question

The smart ones know what conservatism stands for today and what it stood for in the past and just deal with it.

The dumb ones think it was pro-diversity liberals who were the slave owners and traditional conservatives who freed the slaves because they assume the Republican Party was always conservative and southern. They confuse party with ideology.

Let me ask you this: You guys claim to be for state rights but then proudly claim Lincoln, Theodore Roosevelt, and the northeastern Republicans who voted for the 1964 Civil Rights Act of 1964.

HOWEVER, these guys used the power of the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT to fix problems. How can you logically claim to be for state rights, but support radical, progressive, and liberal Republicans like Lincoln, Roosevelt, and Rockeller?

Let me add, that the whole southern state rights movement was because of people like Lincoln and and because of laws like the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

They didn't want the federal government telling them what to do.

andy g,

Southern Democrats were CONSERVATIVE Democrats.

"Southern Bloc"

The name given to a group of conservative southern Democratic Senators, and one Republican Senator (John Tower of Texas), who opposed passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The southern bloc was led by Senator Richard Russell of Georgia.

http://www.congresslink.org/print_teaching_glossary.htm#Sbloc

sociald,

I bring up Nelson Rockefeller from New York because he represented the liberal wing of the Republican Party. The wing that voted along with liberal Democrats for civil rights.

Conservative Republicans like Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan were against them.

overt,

I think it's best to divide this into economic and social issues. The southern wing of the Democratic Party has always been socially conservative but they used to be economically liberal. That's why they voted for FDR, JFK, and LBJ.

Only after Democrats started being socially as well as economically liberal, did southerners start to bail out.

sociald,

Why wouldn't you include Nelson Rockefeller with Theodore Roosevelt? They both used government to help workers, consumers, and citizens against corporate abuse.

Answer 1

I think you need to start the history lesson with the Jeffersonian Republicans and the Federalists.
People are oblivious to the fact that the Democratic party was a conservative party until LBJ pushed thru the civil rights act.
George Wallace, the Democratic governor of Alabama, was the biggest conservative of his time.

Answer 2

Well Im not a dittohead but I dont think that conservatism stands for anything else than what it always has.
However some claiming to be conservatives do not really stand for conservatism when you are talking about politicians.

And im not sure I would count Rockefeller (well I am sure actually , I wouldnt ) with Lincoln and Roosevelt.

When you have a president, who is a federal executive officer and representative of the country how possibly WOULD they use anything 'except' for the Federal Government to accomplish anything.
They werent/arent state governmental representatives they cant use State Government to do it.

And this conservative supports civil rights. The founding fathers also recognized that some rights are universal and needed to be there for all citizens not just this state or that state. Most things should be up to the state but some taht are core basic right and wrong principles need to be assured for all.

I wouldnt imagine that you would disagree would you?

yea thats why I wouldnt really include him per se.

Answer 3

Here we go again..........
Are you just fishing for the answer you want? Try reading some good old history books instead of typing in here? You might learn something. You're embarrassing yourself.

Conservative Democrats are really liberals...... liberals by all accounts.

Answer 4

Support of strong state rights does not imply that there is no need for federal government.

Answer 5

Read some history and look at the names that voted against civil rights Yep they were southern DEMOCRATS.

Answer 6

Actually, it was mainly evangelical Christian fundamentalists who were the driving force behind the abolition of slavery.

Think John Brown.

Answer 7

Why frustrate yourself trying to use facts. logic and reason with a bunch of marginally educated people with extremely low reading comprehension?

Answer 8

duhhhhh mmmmmm pshhhhhhhhhhhh uhga uhga uhga

Answer 9

Our national icons are often held in such esteem as to eclipse the fact they were fallible---as all men are. For this reason, it is important that we occasion to look with a critical eye upon these larger-than-life figures. Cultural myth, after all, can cloud historical truth. It is in this spirit that we revisit Abraham Lincoln's statesmanship status, not just the man credited with preserving the Union, emancipating slaves and founding the Republican Party, but the man who presided over the most grievous constitutional contravention in American history. When one dares tread upon the record of such an iconic figure as Lincoln, one risks all manner of ridicule from devoted loyalists. That notwithstanding, ”the constitutional federalism envisioned by our Founders and outlined by our Constitution's Bill frights was grossly violated" by our 16th President -- and many of his successors. The first of Lincoln's two most oft-noted achievements was the preservation of the Union. It is, I believe, a blessing that we are still the USA, one nation united, though it has been argued eloquently that Southern states would likely have reunited with Northern states before the end of the 19th century, had Lincoln allowed for a peaceful and constitutionally accorded secession. Furthermore, under this reunification model, the constitutional order of the republic would have remained largely intact. The Founding Fathers established the Constitutional Union as a voluntary agreement among the several states, subordinate to The Declaration of Independence, which never mentions the nation as a singular entity, but instead repeatedly references the states as sovereign bodies, unanimously asserting their independence. The states, in ratifying the Constitution, established the federal government as their agent---not the other way around. At Virginia’s ratification convention, for example, the delegates affirmed "that the powers granted under the Constitution being derived from the People of the United States may be resumed by them when so ever the same shall be perverted to injury or oppression." Were this not true, the federal government wouldn’t have been established as federal, but instead a national, unitary and unlimited authority. Notably, and in large measure as a consequence of the War Between the States, the "federal" government has grown to become an all-but unitary and unlimited authority. Our Founders upheld the individual sovereignty of the states, even though the wisdom of secessionist movements was a source of great tension and debate from the day the Constitution was ratified. Tellingly, Hamilton, the greatest proponent of centralization among the Founders, noted in Federalist No. 81 that waging war against the states "would be altogether forced and unwarranted." At the Constitutional Convention, Hamilton argued, "Can any reasonable man be well disposed toward a government which makes war and carnage the only means of supporting itself?" Yet Lincoln threatened the use of force to maintain the Union in his First Inaugural Address, saying, "In [preserving the Union] there needs to be no bloodshed or violence; and there shall be none, unless it be forced upon the national authority." Lincoln may have preserved the Union geographically (at great cost to the Constitution), but politically and philosophically, the concept of a voluntary union was shredded by sword, rifle and cannon. In his Gettysburg Address, Lincoln employed lofty rhetoric to conceal the truth of our nation's most costly war---a war that resulted in the deaths of some 600,000 Americans and the severe disabling of over 400,000 more. He claimed to be fighting so that "this nation under God shall have a new birth of freedom, and that government of the people, by the people, for the people shallot perish from the earth." In fact, Lincoln was ensuring just the opposite by waging an appallingly bloody war while ignoring calls for negotiated peace. It was the "rebels" who were intent on self-government, and it was Lincoln who rejected their right to that end, despite our Founders' clear admonition to the contrary in the Declaration. Moreover, had Lincoln's actions been subjected to the terms of the Fourth Geneva Convention (the first being codified in 1864),he and his principal military commanders, Gen. William T. Sherman heading the list, would have been tried for war crimes. This included waging "total war" against not just combatants, but also the entire civilian population. It is estimated that Sherman's march to the sea was responsible for the deaths of tens of thousands of civilians. (Continuing their legacy, after the war, Sherman and Gen. Philip Sheridan waged unprecedented genocide against Native Americans.) "Reconstruction" followed the war, and with it an additional period of Southern probation, plunder and misery, leading General Robert E. Lee to conclude, "If I had foreseen the use those people designed to make of their victory, there would have been no surrender at Appomattox Courthouse; no sir, not by me. Had I foreseen these results of subjugation, I would have preferred to die at Appomattox with my brave men, my sword in my right hand." The second of Lincoln's two most oft-noted achievements was ending the abomination of slavery. It has come to be understood that this calamitous war was the necessary cost of ridding our nation of slavery, yet no other nation at the time required war to do so. In fact, the cost of the war itself would have more than paid for compensatory emancipation, giving each slave 40 acres and a mule -- all without bloodshed. However, Lincoln's own words undermine his hallowed status as the Great Emancipator. For example, in his fourth debate with Stephen Douglas, Lincoln argued: "I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races---that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of Negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race." Originally, of course, the War Between the States was not predicated on freeing slaves, but preserving the Union---or, as the South saw it, preserving the sovereignty of the several states. States' rights are most aptly understood through the words and actions of Gen. Lee, who detested slavery and opposed secession. In 1860, however, Gen. Lee declined Lincoln's request that he take command of the Army of the Potomac, saying that his first allegiance was to his home state of Virginia: "I have, therefore, resigned my commission in the army, and save in defense of my native state...I hope I may never be called on to draw my sword." He would, soon thereafter, take command of the Army of Northern Virginia, rallying his officers with these words: “Let each man resolve to be victorious, and that the right of self-government, liberty, and peace shall find him a defender." As for delivering slaves from bondage, it was two years after the commencement of hostilities that Lincoln signed the Emancipation Proclamation---to protests from free laborers in the North, who didn’t want emancipated slaves migrating north and competing for their jobs. In truth, not a single slave was emancipated by the stroke of Lincoln's pen. Slaves were "freed" in Confederate states, excluding the territory occupied by the federal army. Slaves in Kentucky, Missouri, Delaware and Maryland were also left in bondage. With his Proclamation, Lincoln succeeded in politicizing the issue and short-circuiting the moral solution to slavery, thus leaving the scourge of racial inequality to fester to this day -- in every state of the Union. In fact, there is evidence now of more ethnic tension in Boston than in Birmingham, in Los Angeles than in Atlanta and in Chicago than in Charleston. Little reported and lightly regarded in our history books is the way Lincoln abused and discarded the individual rights of Northern citizens. Tens of thousands of citizens were imprisoned (most without trial) for political opposition, or "treason," and their property confiscated. Habeas corpus and, in effect, the entire Bill of Rights were suspended. In fact, the Declaration of Independence details remarkably similar abuses by King George to those committed by Lincoln: the “Military [became] independent of and superior to the Civil power”; he imposed taxes without consent; citizens were deprived "in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury"; state legislatures were suspended in order to prevent more secessions; he "plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people...scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.” Chief among the spoils of victory is the privilege of writing the history. Thus, the Lincoln most Americans know is the one who preserved the Union, freed the slaves and founded the Republican Party. A more thorough and dispassionate reading of history, however, reveals that these were silver linings within a dark cloud of constitutional abuse. Finally, while the War Between the States concluded in 1865, the battle for states' rights -- the struggle to restore constitutional federalism---remains spirited. "Stripped of all its covering, the naked question is, whether ours is a federal or consolidated government; a constitutional or absolute one; a government resting solidly on the basis of the sovereignty of the States, or on the unrestrained will of a majority; a form of government, as in all other unlimited ones, in which injustice, violence, and force must ultimately prevail." ---South Carolina Senator John Calhoun, "The War Between the States...produced the foundation for the kind of government we have today: consolidated and absolute, based on the unrestrained will of the majority, with force, threats, and intimidation being the order of the day. Today’s federal government is considerably at odds with that envisioned by the framers of the Constitution... [The War] also laid to rest the great principle enunciated in the Declaration of Independence that 'Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed'. “--Walter Williams. "What kind of democracy can exist where tens of thousands of political opponents are jailed, opposition newspapers shut down by the hundreds, telegraph communication is censored, elections are rigged, and new states are created illegally to add to the incumbent government's electoral-college vote count? And what kind of 'democracy' is it where 10 percent of the population is appointed by one man to rule over the other 90 percent, as was Lincoln’s plan for 'reconstruction'? It's 'Lincolnian democracy,' of course, but not the kind of democracy that most Americans would be familiar with." ---Thomas DiLorenzo, Lincoln scholar and author of The Real Lincoln, an excellent resource